Institute for Private Enterprise » Global Politics

NZ Killings

Des Moore — Sun, 17 Mar 2019 05:20:08 +0000

Some Thoughts About the NZ Killings

As expected, there has been universal condemnation of the killing of 49 Muslims in two NZ mosques by an Australian using automatic weapons. That person is Breton Tarrant, who seems to have planned the killings carefully, including by spending three months in Christchurch and maintaining contacts with 3-4 colleagues. The incident has naturally raised questions about the implications for police/defence policies and whether existing policies are adequate.

Peter Jennings, Head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (way back I was on ASPI’s Board), identifies some problems:

Such an attack could just as easily have been made on Muslims in Australia (only 1.1% of New Zealand is populated by Muslims) and it could have been an even larger attack, as occurred at the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 when 130 were killed, on that occasion by ISIL suiciders (see 2015 Paris Attacks Killed 130);
Violence by “fascist white supremacists” has occurred before and is an ongoing matter of concern to police et al;
There is concern that social media will publicise the activity by Tarrant, who live-streamed it himself and issued a 73 page manifesto. Such wide coverage will attract the attention of “every teen with a grudge … and every lunatic with a manifesto” and “looking to be the next Anders Breivik, the Norwegian ‘far-right’ terrorist who killed 77 people in a lone attack in 2011”;
The NZ killing by an anti-Muslim will be used by Islamic groups “as a call to take the fight to ‘the far enemy’… of non-Muslim Westerners” (for further detail see NZ Killings of Muslims Have Possible Further Occurrences).

The excellent coverage of the NZ incident in The Australian includes references to why Tarrant decided to do the killings. The basic aim given in his 73-page manifesto is to stop the “mass immigration of “non-Europeans to “our lands”, and “WHITE GENOCIDE”. Revenge is his motive for the attack, the author claims”. The problem started with the Ottomans (see NZ Killer’s Manifesto Postulates Events “Reguiring” Revenge).

Also, Tarrant’s live stream is “set to a seemingly incongruous soundtrack, a jaunty European folk song. Beneath the melody, there is a sinister message. The song was written to celebrate Serbia’s war against Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the Balkans”. And the music “shifts to the flute and snare of the British Grenadiers, the marching tune used by the British redcoats against America’s revolutionaries”… We hear the opening lyric of The Prodigy song, Hellfire: “I am the god of hellfire, and I bring you, fire.’’ (see NZ Killer Seeks Revenge For The Past).

My conclusion is that, regrettable as they are, incidents such as the NZ one do occur nowadays looking at it from the perspective of Western countries. Terrorists do come from both the “white male” side and the Muslim side and our policies need to be as tight as possible to limit the incidents from either side ( in NZ’s case it appears that checking of airline luggage was not being properly carried out, controls over the gun he used were lax, and over the considerable time that Tarrant made contacts with his colleagues, NZ security should have been able to detect what was going on). My guess is that more deficiencies will emerge as the killings are reviewed.

Such security arrangements also need to have regard to the growing resentment from “white males”, particularly in European countries, to the increasing number of Muslims in those countries who do not integrate with other sections of the population. There are almost certainly many “white males” who have similar views about Muslim immigrants to those of Tarrant, albeit not to effecting killings.

It is sometimes said that most Muslims want to live peacefully. But polls and experience suggest differently and research by Australian expert theologian Mark Durie indicates the religion stimulates jihadist activity and requires a much lower role for women. Durie’s latest book, The Qur’an and Its Biblical Connections, argues that, contrary to Muslim assertions, we don’t all believe in the same god and that the Koran actually contains revelations which threaten us today. As Durie puts it, “punishment of unbelievers was to be brought about in this life by the hands of believers. Slay them, says the Koran”.

Can Electricity Prices be Reduced?

Des Moore — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:14:43 +0000

Will Electricity Prices Be Allowed by Governments to Fall?

The improvement in the Coalition’s Newspoll on 29 January (still down at 47/53 TPP) has almost been forgotten and questions continue as to whether Morrison is able to address the “two big things” (quit Paris accord and slash immigration) needed to give the Coalition a chance. The need for quitting the Paris accord has been enhanced by what has happened under heat waves in Victoria, South Australia and now NSW.

Since my 29/1 Commentary the possibility of the Coalition establishinga policy which would, as promised, allow lower electricity prices to happen and be sustained continues to be highly unlikely– except of course if government controls are able to be imposed legally and producers/retailers are compensated for a proportion of the existing higher costs which would otherwise be met by consumers of electricity, but with taxpayers then having to pay the costs. As indicated in the this article (Forward Electricity Prices Increase), at present futures markets are operating on the basis that the increasing reliance on renewables under announced policies will mean that there will be periods when major shortages of supply occur given that states have policies which will rely on up to 50 per cent of power coming from renewable and prices will have to increase to choke off a proportion of demand (the discussion in the article is confused because the author and the AFR itself supports existing policy).

This is basically what happened during last week’s heat wave and little wind power and which led to a sudden major increase in costs. It is reported that Victorian and South Australian consumers of electricity had to pay additional costs of about $1bn for just two days last week, which indicates the frailty of existing policies operated by those two states (see Power Costs Increase by $1bn in Two Days) and which other states also operate. Indeed, NSW has today experienced blackouts which appear less than in Melbourne but which include outages (and additional costs) in hospitals (see Blackouts in NSW Too).

Note that Federal Resources Minister Canavan said that this occurrence “justifies investment in reliable sources of power, such as coal-fired power”. But he fails to recognise that the private sector will not make any such investments under the existing climate change policy which aims to reduce usage of coal. Note also that the climate “expert” employed by The Australian, Graham Lloyd, comments that “Renewable energy might be the cheapest option to build but it makes sense only if there is power available when it is needed”(see Graham Lloyd on Renewable). But he doesn’t canvass a reduction in usage of renewable or a basic problem with policies.

The “solution” of course is to withdraw from the Paris accord which Turnbull signed on our behalf (sic) and, instead, adopt a climate change policy which preferably eliminates any target for using renewable or reducing carbon emissions but at least reduces such targets to a major extent. Properly handled, that would provide a major weapon with which to fight the election given that Labor has adopted an even larger bunch of targets to use renewable and to reduce carbon emissions. But Morrison has first to indicate that his government is now not in agreement with CC policies adopted under Turnbull.

Morrison’s Objectives Not Clear; Sea Levels; O’Dwyer Resignation

Des Moore — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 05:32:29 +0000

Where is Morrison Going?

In my Commentary for 17 January I noted that “there is no sign yet of a more comprehensive presentation of Coalition policies even though Turnbull has gone”. Recent developments have now raised the question of what Morrison is actually seeking to achieve as leader of the Coalition. For example, his three day visit to Vanuatu and Fiji, accompanied by his wife, and the announcement of financial provisions for extensive infrastructure and other aid have made it appear an important initiative for Australia (see Australia/Fiji Relations).

Yet while this might help limit Chinese activity in the region, and help Fiji itself, it scarcely rates as an initiative which the Coalition leader should undertake at a time when other policies need to be developed prior to an election in May. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who was Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and had made 35 trips to the Pacific islands, might well have implemented the enhanced Pacific policies announced by Morrison, albeit at a lower level (see Warning on Loans to Pacific Islands). But she was dropped as a minister.

Morrison himself seems to have been ill-prepared to handle the views of Fiji President, Bainimarama, on climate change and, in particular, the supposed threat of rises in sea levels.Yet all the Pacific Islands have long used the supposed threat from climate change as a basis for requiring more aid and Morrison should have recognised this. But he appears to have accepted sea levels as a real, almost immediate, threat (see Morrison on Climate Change).

Climate expert Bill Kininmonth points out that “Bob Hawke got a similar serve from the then Fiji PM at a South Pacific Forum meeting back about 1988. As a consequence the Australian government funded the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project, a network of about a dozen automated sea level and meteorological observing stations. The project was managed by the National Tidal Facility at Flinders University. The NTF was incorporated by BoM in the early 2000s. I was on a project review team in the early 200s when it was still in Flinders. There seemed to be excellent technical management of the project”.

An examination of the monthly sea level data (Max, Min and Mean) share shows that, except in one year (1997-98), there is no upwards trend in sea levels according to BOM data.

Was Morrison unaware of this? Did he consult his environment Minister? Did he consult fellow Cabinet colleagues before the visit?

His apparent failure to check on sea levels in the Pacific and Fiji in particular is made more important by an interview conducted about a year ago by the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation with expert oceanographer Nils-Axel Morner. In fact, Morner’s analysis extends beyond the Pacific and he disparages the IPCC as having “always misrepresented the facts on this topic. It exaggerates the risks of a sea level rise enormously. The IPCC relies in particular on questionable computer models rather than field research”. Morner adds that using his research “We were able to prove that the sea level in Fiji from 1550 to about 1700 was about seventy centimeters higher than it is today. Then it sank and was about fifty centimeters lower in the 18th century than it is today. Then it rose to about the current level. In the last 200 years, the level has not changed significantly. For the past 50 to 70 years, it has been stable” (see Nils-Axel Morner Says Sea Levels No Problem).

The failure of almost all political leaders, and of many who write about the supposed threat from climate change, is also illustrated in the article by Bjorn Lomborg published in Weekend Australian. He points out that a major charity, Christian Aid, has released a report, Counting the Cost: A Year of Climate Breakdown, documenting the “huge costs of climate impacts” and saying that the cost of climate change last year was $US85 billion ($118bn). Lomborg says that this claim was “repeated by many newspapers — just as it was designed to — yet it is nonsense”… “But the charity, which receives money from the British and US governments and the European Commission and raised more than £100 million in 2017-18, is scaremongering” (see Lomborg Identifies False Claims on CChange).

In short, activists who support the dangerous warming threat and the need for governments to implement policies to reduce emissions, are costing taxpayers unwarranted expenditure. But, while the meeting of political leaders at Davos this week will doubtless have considerable discussions on CC, they are unlikely to do much about that.

Resignation of Kelly O’Dwyer

Today’s announcement that Kelly O’Dwyer, the Liberal member for Higgins, will not stand again for election is another surprise the more so as it has been a blue ribbon seat. The reported resignation indicates that she had given Morrison advance notice and that “I would particularly like to thank the Prime Minister and Jenny for their personal support in what has been a very difficult decision. I have worked closely with Scott not just as PM but also as Treasurer,” Ms O’Dwyer said. “He is the right person to lead our nation and I will do all that I can, both locally and nationally, to ensure that this continues” (see Is O’Dwyer Quit a Loss to Libs?).

Her appointment was as Minister for Women and for Industrial Relations, but she has not appeared to have made any impression on the latter or its much needed reforms. Indeed, it was a bit surprising that she was given a ministry which has to deal mainly with men, had no obvious experience with the issues, and yet is thought to be a major election issue.

At the press conference announcing the resignation, Morrison is reported as agreeing that “family is so important”, and that he supported Ms O’Dwyer’s choice to leave politics. He said that being able to choose shows “great strength” and said “no one in Parliament has worked harder” on issues that women face. “When asked about Ms O’Dwyer’s replacement, she said there was plenty of talent within the Liberal Party and she hoped it would be another woman. Mr Morrison did not want to speculate on who the candidate might be” but there is much media commentary to the effect that it will “have to be a woman”.

Morrison has missed an opportunity to say that he would select the most important person available and there is in fact a need for a revised Ministry.

Election Campaign Start? No Comprehensive Coalition Policy; Cabinet Re-Shuffle Needed; Mistakes Made By Climate Warmists; Others Have Walls

Des Moore — Thu, 17 Jan 2019 03:59:31 +0000

Unofficial Election Campaign Starts – But Slowly

While Morrison says he will not attempt an early election, the New Year is seeing the re- emergence of debate on issues such as border controls. It is pointed out that, while “Labor softened its asylum-seeker policy at its national conference last month by formally endorsing doctor-ordered medical evacuations off Manus Island and Nauru, it remains committed to boat turnbacks when safe to do so, offshore processing and regional resettlement.” But Morrison claims “they will abolish temporary protections visas and last year voted to end offshore processing as we know it in the parliament. And they had no clue what they had done’’ (see Dispute over OZ Border Policy).

However, the most “issues-attention” has been given by Treasurer Frydenberg and Home Affairs Minister Dutton and there is no sign yet of a more comprehensive presentation of Coalition policies even though Turnbull has gone and he seems to receive less media coverage. The decision by Morrison to make the present official visit to Vanuatu and Fiji is obviously driven mainly by the increasing attention being given by the Chinese to Pacific Islands. But the development of a comprehensive Coalition policy seems more important and the Foreign Affairs Minister should be able to handle the Pacific Islands. True, a more knowledgeable/presentable person than Payne could be useful (she was initially appointed by Morrison after Bishop resigned). Indeed, it would be desirable to have a major re-shuffle of Cabinet before the election, including the re-appointment of Abbott and Abetz.

An important election issue has emerged from the revelation in an OECD report that Australia relies on revenue from company taxes for 16 per cent of budget revenue, which is the highest share in the advanced world and compares with an advanced nation average of 9 per cent. As David Uren points out, “the failure of the Turnbull government to break the Senate gridlock last year to legislate a phased reduction in the company tax rate for big businesses to 25 per cent has left Australia among a group of 18 nations with a standard company tax rate of at least 30 per cent, nearly all of them developing nations” (see Australia Has High Company Tax Rate).

Another important election issue is, of course, energy policy and the promise to reduce electricity prices. I drew attention in the 12 January Commentary to Alan Moran’s analysis showing there is scope to start doing this by effecting a reduction in government subsidies. Recent evidence of statements by warmists which have been shown to be badly wrong could also be used as a basis for justifying the moderation of Australia’s policy.

These include a survey by the UK’s The Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by a former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, from 1983-89. The incorrect warmist sayings are summarized below for each month of 2018:

January 2018: Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: Study. PARIS (AFP) – Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday (Jan 17) which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions. A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet’s temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

February: ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals. The Pacific nation of Tuvalu — long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels — is actually growing in size, new research shows. A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery. It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

March: BBC forced to retract false claim about hurricanes. You may recall the above report by the BBC, which described how bad last year’s Atlantic hurricane season was, before commenting at the end: “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.” I fired off a complaint, which at first they did their best to dodge. After my refusal to accept their reply, they have now been forced to back down

April: Corals can withstand another 100-250 Years of climate change, new study. Heat-tolerant genes may spread through coral populations fast enough to give the marine creatures a tool to survive another 100-250 years of warming in our oceans.

May: Climate change causes beaches to grow by 3,660 square kilometers. Since 1984 humans have gushed forth 64% of our entire emissions from fossil fuels. (Fully 282,000 megatons of deplorable carbon “pollution”.) During this time, satellite images show that 24% of our beaches shrank, while 28% grew. Thus we can say that thanks to the carbon apocalypse there are 3,660 sq kms more global beaches now than there were thirty years ago.

June: Antarctica not losing ice, NASA researcher finds. NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.

July: National Geographic admits they were wrong about notorious starving polar bear-climate claims. The narrative behind the viral photo of a polar bear starving, reportedly thanks to climate change, has been called into question by the National Geographic photographer who took it in the first place.

August: New study shows declining risk and increasing resilience to extreme weather in France. This risk factor for French residents of cities stricken by a disaster has been falling with every passing decade.

September: Coral bleaching is a natural event that has gone on for centuries, new study. Coral bleaching has been a regular feature of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 400 years, with evidence of repeated mass events dating back to well before European settlement and the start of the industrial revolution.

October: Climate predictions could be wrong in UK and Europe. Current climate change predictions in the UK and parts of Europe may be inaccurate, a study conducted by researchers from the University of Lincoln, UK, and the University of Liège, Belgium, suggests.

November: Number and intensity of US hurricanes have remained constant since 1900. There’s been “no trend” in the number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the continental U.S. and the normalized damages caused by such storms over the past 117 years, according to a new study.

December: Alarmist sea level rise scenarios unlikely, says climate scientist Judith Curry. A catastrophic rise in sea levels is unlikely this century, with recent experience falling within the range of natural variability over the past several thousand years, according to a report on peer-reviewed studies by US climate scientist Judith Curry.

Today’s Australian also runs an article by climate expert Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer disparaging the claim still often made that 97 per cent of scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. Plimer asks “Is that really true? No. It is a zombie statistic. In the scientific circles I mix in, there is an overwhelming scepticism about human-induced climate change. Many of my colleagues claim that the mantra of human-induced global warming is the biggest scientific fraud of all time and future generations will pay dearly” (see Plimer Disparages 97% Consensus on Global Warming).

There are many other examples of errors, in some cases deliberately made by “scientists” including for reasons not actually scientific, which could be used as a basis for reducing the emissions target set in Paris by Malcolm Turnbull when PM, but who had no scientific expertise on the causes of climate change.

Another important development in this context is the establishment by climate expert Viv Forbes of a Saltbush Club to conduct a national campaign to support Australia’s immediate withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. Along with many others I have joined this club, which has now issued a press release pointing out, inter alia, that “Australia will suffer badly from the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on cheap, reliable hydro-carbon fuels such as oil, diesel, gas and coal and the backbone industries that rely on them – mining and smelting, farming, fishing, forestry, processing and manufacturing” (see EXIT PARIS AGREEMENT- Break the Climate Chains Now).

Unfortunately, Morrison has already said that Australia must stick with the Paris Agreement even though it is not binding. He has probably been heavily influenced in making this decision by advice from his department, which includes staff who are strong believers in the dangerous global warming thesis. But, one way or another, he needs in the Coalition’s interests to over-rule such advice.

US Wall Policy

In the Commentary of 12 January I argued that “the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem” arising in part from the absence of adequate control on the border with Mexico and noted that Greg Sheridan took a similar view. Subsequently, Trump has “declared he will never back down from his border wall to protect Americans, paving the way for a prolonged deadlock over what is already the longest government shutdown”. This view was strengthened somewhat by “a Washington Post-ABC News poll which shows that while a majority oppose the wall, support for it has grown over the past 12 months, from 34 per cent to 42 per cent” (see Trump on Walls).

It may also be strengthened by a survey published by Breitbart showing that government agencies and prominent individuals make use of walls. The survey shows extensive photos of such walls including those constructed by Hungary, Israel and Bulgaria (on the border with Turkey) as protection against illegal migrants. The survey covers a number of prominent US politicians (including Hilary Clinton) who have opposed the funding of the Mexican wall but who have themselves used protective walls in the US (see photo of Hungary’s Border Wall).

No doubt the controversy over the wall and the partial shut-down in Washington will continue. The latest development is an attempt by Speaker Pelosi to alter the State of Union address by Trump scheduled for 29 January. It appears that her reasons for alteration are rejected even by Democrat-leaning media (see Pelosi Tries to Postpone State of Union Address).

US Defence & Immigration Policies; US/China Trade; OZ Energy Policy

Des Moore — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:57:09 +0000

Where Does US Defence Policy Stand Now

Trump’s sudden announcement that the US intends to “immediately withdraw” troops from Syria (and much reduced troops for Afghanistan) has caused much confusion as to US defence policy and, following the resignation of Mattis as Defence Secretary, Trump has found it difficult to get a replacement. While consistent with his election manifesto, Trump appears to have recognised that he was being too hasty and it appears he has accepted the view of National Security adviser, John Bolton, that the withdrawal be extended over a longer period and that it should first involve the elimination of IS (which Trump initially claimed had been achieved). Even so, policy uncertainty remains.

This has been increased by an address made by US Secretary of State Pompeo in Cairo, who declared the US was committed to “expel every last Iranian boot” from Syria where, in alliance with Russia, Tehran, in its drive for regional hegemony, has been propping up the murderous Assad regime. Without mentioning Mr Obama by name, Mr Pompeo heaped scorn on the former president’s “misguided” thinking on the use of military force and reluctance to call out “radical Islam”. That was a reference to Mr Obama’s preference for the term “violent extremism” when referring to Islamist terrorism and his call for an “opening towards Muslims” that would “transcend stereotypes”.

“Remember: it was here, here in this very city, another American stood before you … he told you that radical terrorism does not stem from ideology. He told you 9/11 led my country to abandon its ideals in the Middle East,” Mr Pompeo said as he argued Mr Obama had misjudged the Arab Spring uprisings. The Obama administration’s Middle East policy, he said, was an example of “what not to do”, whether in striking the nuclear deal or abandoning long-time ally Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s ruler, allowing him to be brought down by an uprising orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood” (see Pompeo on US Middle East Policy).

It is difficult to see how Pompeo’s statements can be reconciled with Trump’s.

Who Will Break the Deadlock on Mexican Wall?

The refusal by Democrat’s House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer to give Trump approval (in the House) for any finance for building the border wall with Mexico poses a challenge to Trump now facing a majority in the House. In return, Trump has refused to approve finance for a large number of federal government employees and has threatened to declare a national emergency which (it appears) would allow him to obtain indirectly finance for the wall. But Trump says he is “not yet” taking such action.

Trump has defended his position not with a tweeter but by making his first formal address from the Oval Office (see Text of Trump’s Address on Border) and has announced that he will not now attend the Davos meeting in Switzerland which purports to give major international leaders an opportunity to expound their international policies.He is also reported as actively promoting his view particularly in the south of US.

The Democrats are using the opportunity to remind people not only of their new majority position in the House but also of the problems which Trump is experiencing on implementing some of the various policies he advocates and the problems created by the partial shut-down of the federal government. However, the Democrats are not reported as addressing the illegal immigrant problem which previous Presidents have acknowledged and, in respect of which, some have supported cross Mexican border measures, albeit not one stretching across the country as Trump promised in his election manifesto.

In an editorial yesterday The Australian points out that “in 2017 the number of undocumented migrants apprehended for crossing into the US was just over 300,000, the lowest number in 46 years. In a year, however, that figure has jumped to 400,000. A Morning Consult/Politico poll shows 42 per cent of Americans believe there is a “crisis” on the border, 12 per cent perceive it as “a problem” and only 12 per cent see nothing amiss; Democratic leaders would be wise not to ignore those numbers” (see Merits in Border Security).

In short, the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem, although he should have started to do that some time ago when he had control of both houses. He did of course attempt early in his Presidency to limit immigrants from seven mainly Muslim countries and there has been an ongoing debate in the US on the extent of controls on immigrants. The increasing immigrant policy problem faced by various countries, including the development of the UK’s English Channel problem (see Migrants Attempting to Cross English Channel), may now attract more support in the US for some tightening of controls.

As Greg Sheridan points out, “it is legitimate for Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi and other Democrats to argue that Trump is proposing a bigger wall than that which they previously supported, or that they have changed their minds. What is not legitimate is to claim that Trump’s proposed wall — refashioned rhetorically now into a barrier, and to be made of steel rather than concrete — is a unique crime against the very essence of humanity and decency. And the wall or barrier or fence that Trump wants to build would certainly help control illegal immigration. So, as ever, there is a good deal of plain common sense in the Trump proposal and it is also what he promised on the election trail … In the next few days Trump will either escalate, by declaring a national emergency and using extraordinary powers — which would be ridiculous but might be effective politically — or capitulate, with some minimal face-saving compromise. In the meantime he has again succeeded in being the trapeze artist from whom no one can avert their eyes” (see Sheridan on Trump’s Wall Explanation).

The Morrison government has made no comment on this matter. Without supporting Trump’s building of the wall, it would be appropriate in circumstances where there is a general public discussion on immigration policy for Australia to indicate support of the US’s attempts to establish an effective regulatory system to control migrants. That is, of course, a potential major election issue here.

US Trade With China

An article published in the Wall St Journal reports that talks on US/China trade have resumed and that this constitutes “a show of Beijing’s seriousness”. At this stage the representatives on each side are not the most senior but the preparedness of China to engage in talks follows an agreement reached between Trump and Xi in December that the US would suspend until March tariff increases on $US200 bn of Chinese imports and thereby give the Chinese time to address what the US regards as unfair trade and economic practices (China became a member of the World Trade Organisation in 2001).

China has an enormous trade surplus with the US, with in 2017 its exports to the US amounting to $506bn and its imports from the US only $130bn (see China’s Large Trade Surplus With US). This appears to confirm that Trump has correctly threatened trade action against China not for protectionist reasons per se but because China is not conforming with WTO rules. Even so, the various aspects discussed in the attached indicate the complexity attached to any unwinding of Chinese restrictions, which extend to investment in China. As a major source for Australian exports, it is important that a satisfactory outcome be achieved.

Energy Policy

In my Commentary of 1 Jan I drew attention to the Morrison government’s decision to carry-over emissions credits obtained under the Kyoto agreements and that this meant that Australia’s emissions reduction target of 26% by 2030, as agreed by Turnbull, will in practice be much less. I also noted that, as a result, the Coalition is an even better position than it was to contrast the adverse economic effects with Labor’s much larger target of a 50% reduction by 2030.

However, there remains much that needs to be done to effect a reduction in electricity prices and the operation of the electricity market. In his analysis of the problems that still exist, climate expert Alan Moran pointed out on January 9 that the latest report by the Energy Regulator, “in line with other official analyses, hugely understated how the electricity market has been undermined by 15 years of government subsidies to the inherently low-quality supply that is wind/solar” (see The Australian Energy Regulator’s Wholesale electricity market performance report).Moran offers a disheartening conclusion as follows:

“Its analytical shortcomings aside, the report’s call for stable policy is a forlorn one. With half a dozen major Commonwealth policy direction changes since 2001 (and many others at the state level) there is zero prospect of policy stability. There never can be such stability when energy policy is inextricably tied to emission reduction policy and the targets for renewable energy vary from zero to 100 per cent”.

If the Morrison government can further moderate its energy policy, it would increase its electoral chances. But as John Roskam said last Friday in an article in the AFR “The Liberals are terrified to talk about industrial relations, they don’t have an energy policy and on questions of values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion they can’t agree among themselves on a position”. A lot of policy changes are needed.

Hollywood Bias Exposed; Trump Sticks to Troop Withrawal; Romney’s Vew

Des Moore — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 02:50:54 +0000

Media/Film Bias Continues Apace

It is widely accepted that, through its films and those acting in them, Hollywood favourably portrays the left and criticises the right. Because it has established this position over the years, most viewers/readers take account of this bias when commenting on a film and simply say no more than “well just as one expected”. But occasionally the bias is so bad that an observer feels forced to draw attention to it.

That is the case with the film “Vice”, which has just appeared and has received five stars from some film critics. But while The Australian’s Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, acknowledges that the film is “superbly made, indeed brilliant”, he portrays it as “profoundly dishonest in its treatment of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush’s vice-president.” Indeed, he rightly points out that “it has a wider cultural significance, for it demonstrates one reason it is so difficult for conservatives to prevail in Western societies. The Left has colonised and politicised much of elite and even popular arts production and uses them to project political messages. Vice is a supreme propaganda film, using all manner of sly tricks to dehumanise its villains. It is full of specific falsehoods. More generally, the innuendo and the physical mockery of its designated villains makes it manipulative and dishonourable”.

Sheridan’s comments, which are worth reading in full (see Hollywood on Cheney), reflect my own now rather hazy recollection of what happened under Bush as President and Cheney as his Vice P. I note in particular Sheridan’s comment that “Far from Bush and Cheney lying about the intelligence, they reported the same intelligence as the Clinton administration had. I confirmed this with many senior Clinton figures who had all believed Saddam had WMDs”.

Sheridan reference to the film’s “wider cultural significance” is also important. Such a well-made, five star film will be widely seen and its bias will be more accepted as fact than might otherwise be the case. One of the bias objects in “Vice” might be to pose the question of whether the Trump administration is “as poor as” the Bush one seems to be portrayed in the film. I don’t know when the film was made but the latest Pew survey published on October 1 in the US summarises the result as “Trump gets lower ratings than his predecessors in recent midterm years – Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – for being trustworthy, empathetic and well-informed. However, Trump fares comparatively well in public perceptions of his ability to get things done” (See Pew Rating on Trump).

The extent of the opposition to Trump in the US might have influenced the way the film makers presented Bush/ Cheney in “Vice”. My own perspective is that, although as Pew says “Trump Gets Negative Ratings for Many Personal Traits”, his policy decisions have made an important positive contribution to the way the US has been seen domestically and rescued it from the negative perspective which developed under Obama both domestically and here in Australia.

Trump’s Negative Perspective on Syria

In my 24 December Commentary I said that Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was sending “the wrong signal to Islamic extremists, and to those with Islamic beliefs in other countries”. An editorial in today’s Australian rightly argues that”Mr Trump failed to take into account the historical perspective of what has and has not worked in the battle against Islamist terrorism since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001”.

It also suggests that Trump has “not understood the implications for the West and Israel of recent moves that have highlighted the way Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at best a very uncertain NATO ally, is now working in lock-step over Syria’s future with Vladimir Putin, Iran and the Assad regime, with each seeking to consolidate their gains in Syria” (see Trump on Syria). It is encouraging to have such points made in a leading editorial.

The importance of continuing to draw attention to Islamic terrorist activity, and the need to respond to it, is reflected in the latest reporting of the stabbing by a “Muslim terrorist of two civilians and a police officer at a train station in Manchester. He shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ and other pro-Islam sentiments upon his arrest but the authorities have arrested him under the ‘Mental Health Act’. Thankfully they are using the counter-terror unit to investigate, but probably only because witnessed heard him shouting those Islamic sayings. Had he not uttered those sentiments, the British authorities might very well have ignored the need to investigate it as a terror attack and preferred to deal with it as a ‘mental health’ issue (see Terrorism Again in Manchester).

A detailed report of the recent murder of two Scandinavian students while hiking in the Atlas Mountains in Morocco is particularly interesting. The author, Bill Muehlenberg (an expert on Islam who is known to me), says “the horrific deaths (including decapitation) were videotaped by the Islamists and images of it were sent to parents of one of the girls. But as has now become the norm, much of the mainstream media in the West has put its own spin on the story. Thus we are once again left to get the actual facts from the alternative media. And there are several issues here which need to be addressed. The main one has to do with the nature of Islam. There is nothing unusual about these murders for the devout Muslim. It is all covered in, and approved by, the main Islamic religious texts. Beheading the infidel is simply par for the course. I document this here in some detail: billmuehlenberg.com/2014/08/27/beheading-and-islam/” (see Morocco, Muslims, Murder and Media Mischief).

Since Trump made the announced withdrawal, and the resignation of some military advisers, there have been reports that he is backtracking. However, it appears that all that he is saying is that the time of the withdrawal is not yet determined.

Romney Attacks Trump Too

The former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who has now become a senator, has also attacked Trump “on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office” (see New Senator Romney Attacks Trump’s Character). In the attachment,Michelle Moons, who is a White House Correspondent for Breitbart News, reports that “Romney acknowledged that Trump had enacted “policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.” He praised aligning “U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors,” deregulation, cracking down on China’s “unfair” trade practices, criminal justice reform, and appointments of conservative judges.

But he went on to assail Trump’s character: “With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”

But Romney’s assail may need to be assessed against the “gaffes” he made during his presidential campaign (see Romney’s Gaffes).

CChange Silly Season; Shorten’s Danger Promises; Immigration Policies Changing

Des Moore — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:09:37 +0000

Silly Season Arrives Early on “Dangers” From Fossil Fuels

Yesterday’s meeting of COAG confirm that discussions of energy policy between federal and state minister have reached the point when people do or say things that are not sensible or serious ie the silly season has arrived (it appears that the only area of agreement was in regard to retail reliability!). The Liberal Energy Minister in NSW, Don Harwin, who somehow acquired a BEc(Hons), advised COAG to aim for zero carbon emissions by 2050 even though his website says “coal will remain a vital source of energy”. To put it mildly, these two propositions conflict and Harwin was not even allowed to put a motion to the meeting.

True, Harwin did rightly say “climate change is a scientific fact”. But nothing was said on what causes climate changes to happen. Since the year 2000, temporary increases aside, global temperatures have been relatively stable despite the strong increase in carbon emissions staying in the atmosphere. Temperatures also remained stable in the post WW2 period to the late 1970s in the face of increasing emissions. The implies there is no substantive scientific correlation between increases in carbon emissions and temperatures.

In reality, the danger threat (sic) from usage of fossil fuels has lost credibility and policies aimed at reducing emissions should be re-examined . Australian governments should not continue policies to reduce emissions unless climate scientists can explain the periods of relative price stability in the face of increasing emissions.

As Judith Sloan points out, “one of the troubles with Harwin (and his Victorian counterpart, Lily D’Ambrosio) is their combined understanding of the energy market is measured in nanowatts; in other words, neither has a clue”. And “ Why would Harwin be worried about 2050 when NSW households have been hit with a rise of nearly $400 in their annual electricity bills over the past two years? Low-income households in NSW are now paying more than 10 per cent of their disposable incomes just to keep the lights on. It was surely ironic that in the same week as the conference, the wholesale price of electricity in the National Energy Market was soaring well above $100 a megawatt hour. Yet Harwin is more concerned about what’s going to happen in 31 years’ time” (see Sloan on Harwin)

As I have previously suggested, if Morrison moderated Australia’s emissions reduction targets in order to start reducing prices naturally, that would be a potential election winner in circumstances where Shorten’s target of a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030 would increase them.

Labor Policies Have Dangers

In an article today, Andrew Bolt argues that at Labor’s National Conference Shorten made promises which would be better NOT kept if he gains office. One is climate change which I deal with above. Bolt adds that “few realise those cuts don’t apply just to coal-fired power stations, but also to cars, trucks, planes, farms, factories, mines and even cattle and pigs, huge sources of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. That is crazy. Doing this, as the Chief Scientist admits, will make virtually no difference to the temperature” (see Bolt on Promises NOT to Keep).

Bolt’s other three “danger promises” by Shorten are a wind back in negative gearing on investment properties as house prices fall; a change in the constitution to create another parliament, an advisory one just for Aborigines, to advise the real parliament meant to represent us all; and increases in refugee immigrants and in grants to the UN to help resettle refugees in the region.

Shorten also said Labor would continue to support the turning the turning back of the boats and offshore detention. But the policy supported in the House’s last day of sitting to fast-track the transfer of asylum seekers to the mainland if assessed by two doctors (and with no ministerial intervention except on security grounds) has the potential to further increase migrants as “asylum seekers”. The national conference showed there is considerable pressure from Labor’s left wing to liberalise the admission of so-called refugees.

Immigration Policies Changing Overseas

Relevant here is the increased resistance to admitting refugees into European countries. Immigration policy is a major issue in the popular protests in France, where there is said to be between 200,000 and 400,000 illegal immigrants in a population of 67 million, which already includes an estimated 5.7 million people born in another country (see French Immigration Policy). In Belgium the Prime Minister has been forced to resign over a dispute on immigration policy (see Belgian PM Resigns on Immigration) and the protest movement across Europe includes an anti-migration component. In the US the Trump government, in conjunction with Mexico, has pledged $5.7 billion “toward development in Central America and Mexico, as part of a plan to strengthen economic growth in the region and curb illegal immigration” (see U.S. Aid to Mexico). In short, it seems that an increased resistance overseas to allowing refugees has developed, which has implications for Australia’s policy too.

CChange Conference; Judith Curry on Predictions of CChange

Des Moore — Sun, 16 Dec 2018 04:15:29 +0000

Climate Change Conference & Judith Curry’s Analysis of Sea Levels

It was great to discover at last Wednesday’s Christmas drinks at Treasury (in Canberra) a number of “oldies” who said they were enjoying my Commentary and in particular the scepticism about the dangerous warming nonsense. While I resigned from Treasury in 1987 I later hoped that, with the danger thesis becoming more widely reflected in government policy both here and overseas, Treasury would publish analyses as John Stone and others had done on various controversial economic subjects during my time there. In fact, I edited a couple including one on the New International Economic Order(NIEO), which had an aim similar to one adopted by believers in the dangerous warming theme viz “save” developing countries by providing squillions of aid which would allow them to substitute costly fuel sources for cheaper fossil fuels.

But such a published Treasury analysis post 1987 was apparently regarded as too “difficult” politically, particularly in circumstances where, after his defeat of Tony Abbott, Turnbull as PM regarded climate change action as one of his main policy objectives. Now that Turnbull has been defeated his successor Scott Morrison has not made it clear what his policy is, although he appears to retain Turnbull’s Paris agreement of reducing emissions by 26-28% by 2030 even though this agreement is non-binding. By stark contrast Opposition Leader Shorten endorses a target of 50% emissions reduction by the same date.

Our main hope for change has been that some prominent world leaders and/or scientists would pour cold water on the danger theme and that this would lead to a reduction in emissions targets. A start has been made with the presidents of Czechoslovakia (Vaclav Havel) and the USA (Trump) rejecting the thesis and an increasing number of scientists exposing the flaws. Trump has indicated the US will formally withdraw from the Paris Agreement made in 2015.

Reports of the climate change conference being held in Poland (due to have finished but still going last night as the 24^th COP) suggest the US attitude has reduced support for action. This reduced support is reflected in

A reduction in world leaders attending. In fact, media reports on the conference do not quote any world leader. With Turnbull gone, the Australian rep is newly appointed Environment Minister Melissa Price and few other countries seem to have sent their leaders. Most noticeable is the absence of French President Macron who boasted of France as a leader of climate change action by imposing a fuel tax and has now had to withdraw it because of yellow-vest protests across France. While these protests are not only being made in support of sceptics of the warming thesis, they send a message to leaders that it would be unwise to adopt the Macron approach of initiating specific policies to reduce usage of fossil fuels. It appears that big producers of fossil fuels, mainly Russia and Saudi Arabia, have supported the US during the conference;
A pro-fossil fuel event was held at the conference by the Trump administration and, according to ABC news, the only non-American panellist at the event was Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment, Patrick Suckling. “Fossil fuels are projected to be a source of energy for a significant time to come,” Mr Suckling said (see ABC on CChange Conference);
The refusal of some countries to include in the communiqué a “welcome” to the last special (sic) IPCC report and instead to make that simply a “note” of the report. However, one report says the communiqué will not include any reference to that report (see BBC on CChange Conference 15/12);
UN chief Antonio Guterres warning that a failure to reach a satisfactory conclusion would be “suicidal,” a point reportedly echoed by small island states fearing for their existence as rising sea levels render their homes uninhabitable.

While Guterres will doubtless attempt to wind up the conference with a communiqué saying that a “consensus” was reached on the need to reduce emissions, any such consensus is unlikely to have the post-conference political support its predecessors felt they had. Also, it will be less difficult politically to justify changes in policies which involve less aggressive action to reduce emissions and provide a longer time frame for continued use of fossil fuels, as Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment implies .

Such possible changes in Australian policy are supported by The Australian’s decision to publish an article on sea levels by US climate scientist Judith Sloan. She assesses estimates of “the maximum possible global sea level rise by the end of the 21st century range from 1.6m to 3m, and even higher, ” as “extreme values of sea level rise … regarded as extremely unlikely or even impossible. Nevertheless, they are driving policies and local adaptation plans”. She also argues that

“climate model predictions consider only human-caused warming and neglect changes in natural climate processes, such as variations in the sun’s output, volcanic eruptions and long-term changes to ocean circulations. These natural processes are expected to have a cooling effect in the 21st century” (see Judith Curry: Alarmist Sea Level Predictions Not Likely to Occur).

Curry’s analyses are of particular importance because she has changed sides. As pointed out in my letter published by The Australian, “after careful research, she became a sceptic and her analysis has been recognised as suitable for publication after peer review” (see CChange Letters 13/12). Other letters published also support Curry and her implicit support for an energy policy which is not based on predictions “regarded as extremely unlikely or even impossible”.

The conclusion in my letter is that “If the Morrison government were to recognise this it could justify lowering Australia’s target for reducing emissions and adopt a policy based on reducing electricity prices”. That would be a potential winner for next year’s election.

US Wins at G20; Morrison Meets Trump; Germany Fails To Successfully Employ Renewables; Stone on Immigration

Des Moore — Sun, 02 Dec 2018 06:05:20 +0000

US Wins at G20 and Morrison Performs Well

Although there has been a “final statement” by leaders attending the meeting of the G20 in Argentina, the text does not seem available on the web and nor does the communique. However, some media are reporting on what was agreed. The outcome on trade was expected to reveal something on the what has been described as a dispute between the US and China (but which has implications for all trading nations). It appears that the US did succeed at G20 in obtaining agreement that the present arrangements need to be changed. The words reported as being used in the communiqué are as follows

“International trade and investment are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development,” the communique says. “We recognise the contribution that the multilateral trading system has made to that end. The system is currently falling short of its objectives and there is room for improvement.”(see G20 Meeting According to the Guardian)

The US also appears to have successfully downplayed the notion that globalised agreements on policy issues are the way to go.According to the Guardian report, in particular “speaking off the record, a senior US official told reporters the US “specifically preserved and explained our position for why we’re withdrawing from the job-killing Paris agreement”. The official claimed to have seen signs of “the coalition fraying” among some signatories to the Paris deal, “like Turkey, like Saudi Arabia, like Russia”. Separately, it is reported that all except the US agreed on retaining Paris, although some only agreed reluctantly (the next IPCC meeting starts in Poland tomorrow). Note also the downplaying of the role of the IMF.

Historically, international meetings such as the G20 (which started with meetings every six months but these are now only yearly) have in practice had little effect on policy decisions made by individual countries, particularly by the US. Under Trump’s Presidency the US will be even more “nationalist” in its influence (particularly through his White House adviser, John Bolton) and, even with the establishment of China as a more influential nation internationally, there is no sign of “globalisation” of policies.

However, the meetings do provide an opportunity for smaller countries such as Australia to meet with the larger countries and let their leaders know of any bilateral support or opposition. Morrison took advantage of this in his 25 minute meeting with Trump, which occurred because Trump cancelled his sideline meeting with Putin because of Russia’s attack on the Ukraine navy. While it appears that Morrison failed to use the opportunity to explain why Turnbull ceased to be PM, he seems to have indicated support for the US on trade and on its policy on Iran and terrorism generally. According to Weekend Australian, “the Trump administration views Mr Morrison as a hardliner on border protection and has looked favourably on the Prime Minister’s pushback against Iran and his review considering shifting Australia’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem”.

Trump certainly gave Morrison a big tick (see Morrison’s Meeting with Trump) and he should now use that to his advantage in Parliament and in enunciating Liberal policies. But as The Australian’s political editor points out, he can’t do it all himself. Rather, “Morrison needs to broaden that argument into a strategy based on policies that have been worked through with his colleagues and give his fractured followers something to focus on apart from each other” (see Shanahan on Morrison). As I argued in my Commentary last Thursday, Morrison needs to indicate that Turnbull’s (losing) policies have been changed and, in particular, his energy policy must ensure that electricity prices will fall substantially not through the so-called big stick approach but through a competitive market.

Energy Policy

On Energy Policy, there are recent developments which reinforce the views of skeptics on policies reducing CO2 emissions. These include

An assessment by a German analyst that “More and more people are about to realize, that supplying the world with stable energy from sun and wind only, will be impossible. Germany took on the challenge to show the world how to build a society based on green energy. They have now hit the wall. Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last 10 years despite huge investments in green energy production capacity” (see Interesting Comment on Renewable Energy);
An assessment by a local physicist of the composition of C02 suggests that not only are ocean sources and plant sources independent but only some 27% of fossil fuel emissions remain in the atmosphere;
An analysis by Swedish sea level expert Nils-Axel Morner indicates that, contrary to IPCC reports, the rate of increase in sea levels has not increased.
Increased analysis showing mistakes in official temperature measurements which falsely show a faster increase in temperatures and a failure to acknowledge that the cause of increases is importantly due the natural causes.

The Morrison government could reduce the sympathetic beliefs by sections of the public, including last week’s street rallies by 10 year old children, that temperature and other weather changes are due mainly to human-caused production of fossil fuels. That would require a publication of a comprehensive report authored mainly by skeptics and should help the government justify the modification of existing targets of emissions and renewable.

Stone on Immigration

I have previously drawn attention to arguments advanced by Stone for a substantive reduction in immigration rates and for not signing up to the UN playing a role in advising on immigration policy. He has now published an article in Spectator complimenting Morrison on the government’s decision that Australia will join the US, Israel, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria in refusing to sign the UN’s ‘Global Compact on Migration’. At the same time he asks why the UN proposal to provide advice on refugees has been signed by Australia and why Morrison’s announcement to consider a reduction of only 30,000 from the immigration target of 190,000 (see Stone on Immigration). He points out that “Australia not only has a large and exceptionally costly refugee and other humanitarian resettlement program, but also makes contributions to countries (e.g., Jordan) where refugees are encamped, and in many cases to their countries of origin (most notably, Afghanistan)”.

Three More Terrorists; Fairfax/Ipso Poll; Immigration Policy

Des Moore — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:50:45 +0000

Serious Deficiencies In Security Revealed in Victoria

In my Commentary published on 18 November I suggested the handling of the Bourke St incident indicated serious deficiencies. This has been confirmed by developments since then.

Most important has been the statement by Victorian Attorney General Pakula that Victorian police had not received information from federal sources which would warrant them acting to at least monitor the now dead Muslim terrorist, Shire Ali. But Victorian police chief Ashton subsequently announced that they had in fact received the necessary federal information. This prompted me to send a letter to the press arguing that Pakula should resign but, as he has stuck to his guns and has been supported by Victorian Premier Andrews, that won’t happen a couple of days before the election (see OZ on Bourke St Terrorist Revelationsand Pakula Claims Not Informed of Terrorists Passport Withdrawal).

My letter was published in today’s Australian (see below) and the Herald Sun published a slightly different version

Fix terror tracking

The Australian, Letters, November 21

Following the killing of Sisto Malaspina by terrorist Hassan Khalif Shire Ali and the many questions about the performance of security, police services and Victorian ministers, three men have now been arrested over another alleged terrorist plot (“Melbourne terror raids: three men charged over plot designed for ‘maximum casualties’”, 20/11).

While the capacity of protective services to prevent terrorism is limited, it must be given top priority in monitoring suspects. But despite removal of his passport, and frequent attendance at Muslim prayer bodies, Shire Ali was not.

Information about potential activists must be fully exchanged between state and federal agencies and ministers. Despite the initial denial by Victorian Attorney-General Pakula (“ASIO, Home Affairs contradict Martin Pakula on Shire Ali’s passport”, 19/11), this now appears to have been the case. This avoidance of facts, and failure to stop Shire Ali, calls for the resignation of Pakula.

Most importantly, federal and state governments need to review what appear to be serious deficiencies in arrangements for preventing terrorist activity.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Debate on this incident will doubtless continue but public attention moved yesterday to the announcement by Victorian police that three Muslims had been arrested as terrorists. It appears that these three had been planning a shooting expedition into a large crowd and their planning had been followed by police for some months despite their use of encryptions (see Objectives of Three Terrorists). Note that they were influenced by“Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric who was killed in a drone attack and whose hate sermons inspired two of America’s worst terror attacks: the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida, and the San Bernardino shooting”.

The report also reveals that “Armagan Eriklioglu, the father of two brothers in the alleged terror cell, posted a link to a Turkish-language Islamic State Facebook –account”. He was not arrested yesterday and the report says he “is not suspected of being part of his sons’ alleged plans”, which seems surprising.

It is possible that this decision by Victorian police to arrest three was timed in order to demonstrate their efficiency (sic) after their poor performance in handling Shire Ali!

As to encryptions, Home Affairs Minister Dutton took the opportunity to call for “the Intelligence Committee today within the parliament to return their advice back to parliament very quickly because this is legislation the government needs to deal with very quickly,” he told reporters. “We have a bill before the parliament that provides the appropriate safety mechanisms, the privacy protections in place, but it allows police and ASIO to do their jobs in relation to these terrorist investigations”. “Mr Shorten has been opposed to this legislation but he needs to review his position as well. We are in a position of vulnerability” (see Dutton Seeks Shorten’s Support on Encryption).

Fairfax-Ipsos Poll Shows Increased Coalition Rating

The Fairfax/Ipsos poll for Nov 14-17 shows an increase in the Coalition’s rating to 48/52 TPP from 45/55 in Oct 10-13. At this level the Morrison government is at a higher rating than the Turnbull one was when he was deposed. But there is still a long way to go for the Coalition and Morrison’s personal performance rating fell to 48 per cent from 50 per cent and his preferred PM rating also fell by a percentage point to 47.

The poll also asked pollers about their views on Energy Policy and Immigrants from Muslim countries, viz

Main energy priority for Government is 47% for Reduce Household Bills cf with 39% for Reduce Emissions.This suggests that, once the cost of reducing emissions hits bank accounts, there is a tendency to reduce support for measures which add to living costs. If the Morrison government were to reduce the cost of emissions (and hence Household Bills) that would likely further reduce support for the mythical dangerous warming thesis.
For views on Immigrants from Muslim countries, 47% say they should be reduced (cf 45% in previous poll) compared with 35% who voted for them to stay the same (cf 29% in previous poll). Those favouring an increase fell from 23% to 14%. As this poll was taken before the Bourke St killing, it probably understates those who think Muslim immigrants should be reduced, as does the latest arrest of three Muslims. A more appropriate assessment would likely occur if the government were to publish an information paper on Muslim beliefs (see Fairfax-Ipso Poll Opposes Increased Muslims)

Immigration Statement by Morrison

In his so-called population speech on Monday, Morrison “floated the idea of reducing the permanent migration cap by about 30,000 people a year. This would bring the maximum permanent intake to the level to which it has fallen in the past year, despite the current cap being 190,000. The population plan will be discussed at the next meeting between state and federal governments on December 12” (see Possible Immigration Targets).

While Labor has indicated it may support a reduction, this is a disappointing response to the many commentators who have argued for a higher reduction figure and to the decision not being made by the Federal government, which should be the policy determinant.

However, Morrison is reported as saying that “Australia will refuse to sign up to the UN’s migration pact, which has already been rejected by the US and several European countries, on the grounds it would weaken border security and undermine the annual immigration program”. He took the position that the compact is

“contrary to the national interest and would be used against Australia by critics of its border policies”. “I’m not going to sign up to an agreement that I believe will only be used by those who have always tried to tear our stronger border policies down”… “I experienced this first-hand back when I was responsible for stopping the boats. We must always decide on these issues and not have our laws undermined by outside influences” … and has a “fundamental flaw” in failing “to distinguish between illegal and “proper” migration when it came to the provision of welfare benefits” (see Australia Not Signing UN Global Migrant Pact).

Hopefully, this decision may also lead to rejecting other global agreements, such as the Paris one on climate change which is clearly not in Australia’s interests. But his statements justifying our immigration policy also need to emphasize that, while reflecting the cultural basis of our society, it is non-discriminatory. As indicated in the recent report by the Centre of Independent Studies, the social cohesion objective is an important component of immigration policy (see CIS Report on Immigration).